New idea about animals on Noah's ark

So what if Noah only had the base species of all the animals today, and so there was enough room for all the animals in the world at that time, and over the 1000's of years till now, all the animals diversified to what they are now.

Comments

For one thing, evolution takes millions and millions of years to cause that kind of diversity, and there were already a huge number of different species when humans emerged, roughly 150,000 years ago. For another thing, there's absolutely no evidence that a worldwide flood ever occurred, or that Noah existed.

I'm sure someone, somewhere, has some kind of proof that some guy back in the day was named Noah. As for his ark, it doesn't necessarily have to have been on the grand scale that it was made out to be. Maybe he was a treehugger that loved animals, so he built a small boat to protect a few of them and some time later it was demolished.

Or maybe the story is false. You don't believe things under the basis that maybe there's evidence somewhere. You believe it based on the evidence you actually have. Nor do you try and bend the story to make it sound more plausible.

What does it matter if the story is false? It's still a story and it has some form of context. While most of religious stories are massively over-exaggerated and blown way out of proportion, you can't deny that some things that may have happened, did happen, but not the extent that was written in the bible. A lot of these things have a substantial amount of evidence to suggest that they did happen, such as a swarm of locusts or acid rain. However, it was science that confirmed these things, not the existence of some God who told Noah to build a boat.

Your reasoning is why I don't call myself an atheist. The vast majority of atheists are worse at shoving their beliefs, or lack there of, down people's throats than most Christians are. Especially on the internet.

Am I saying some guy back in the day built a massive boat and sailed the flooded earth with every possible creature on board? No. I'm saying that something similar, but to a much smaller degree may have happened. Maybe a small flood occurred in Noah's area and he built a little boat, or maybe it didn't. What does it matter?

I think it is obvious that the way the bible tells the story is not possible for it to actually have happened. However, even if you interpret the story as wildly exaggerated, there is evidence to suggest that it did not happen and no evidence to suggest that it did happen other than the story in the bible. Sure it may have happened, a lot of things may have happened, like how the earth may have been invaded by aliens in 45,000 BC, but until there is evidence to support that it did happen I think it's a bit odd to call such fictional events "historical" and the people in said fictional events "historical figures." Of course, maybe I have overlooked some historical evidence of the biblical Noah or his ark existing that you'd care to point out?

"Your reasoning is why I don't call myself an atheist. The vast majority of atheists are worse at shoving their beliefs, or lack there of, down people's throats than most Christians are. Especially on the internet."

We're not shoving anything down your throat, we're just pointing out that you're giving the Noah's ark story too much credit. Even a lot of Christians think this story is nonsense. (I've yet to meet one outside of the internet who thinks its any more than allegory, along with most of the bible.)

You yourself even stated most of this is blown out of proportion. Besides that, it's like what Casper said, lots of things MAY have happened. If you want to make a list of things that MIGHT have happened, we'll be debating this forever.

That said, let's just let this post die, I can feel my brain cells committing suicide when I think about how it's still on the front page.

I can't prove that it did and you can't prove that it didn't. That's the point. I'm not trying to prove that it did though. I'm simply expressing the idea that the opposite of 'it may have happened' is not, 'it didn't happen.' Whether it happened or not doesn't matter. Unless you have a time machine, no one will know the legitimacy of any story in the bible. So when an atheist says, 'you have no proof, so it didn't happen,' they are making the same assumption as a religious person who says, 'the bible said it, so it must be true.' That's my point here.

No, it's not the same. Because you can justify believing in ANYTHING by that reasoning. I'd say it's more like "You have no proof, so it's dishonest to believe/assert it happened." To humour you, maybe it did. But the chances are so slim and it demands so much suspension of disbelief that I think you're making a false equivalency.

The reason why this equivalency exists is because religion vs atheism is such a vast playing field that the equivalency has created itself. No one is going to believe someone has a magical fork when that guy has no proof because it's an absurd idea. The idea of God is believed by so many people that if He had some physical representation, like a magical fork, every person who believes in God would support the magical fork and the people who don't believe in God would shun the magical fork. I personally don't believe in God along with most people on the internet, but I personally don't like telling people they are wrong because they do. To each his own and with that, I'm off.

No, a few christian websites distort evidence and pretend it proves there was a flood. Those are the ones that are easiest to find, since most people know that it's physically impossible, and don't bother writing articles about something as silly as a worldwide flood.

You are only proving my point though. It doesn't matter if you believe that it happened or not, but when you try to change other people's beliefs on the subject, you become the thing you seem to hate most about Christians in that they try to change you into a religious person. Being atheist is not about, "I don't believe in God because God sounds like a stupid idea." Being atheist is understanding that we are here because of natural selection and that there is no God that would've had anything to do with that. Some people choose not to believe that. Let them believe that, it's their choice. That's why I don't call myself an atheist is because the vast majority of people associate atheists with the text in quotes.

Also, with modern science, it would probably be fairly easy to prove that a world-wide flood didn't happen, but there again, you're missing my point. I never said there was, nor was I trying to prove there was or was not.

ehhh technically it depends on what part of evolution we are talking about, going single cell to multiple and to have species reach the points they are at today? hell yea millions of years. to have speciation occur just around 6,000 years (according to some article i read)

(if you read this one first look for the * on my next reply and read it. it'll explain)

hehehehe so i thought this might be funny. You know as well as well as i do evolution isn't up for debate buuuut it thought i'd have some fun with this post. i'm hoping someone jumps on what i said about the 6,000 year speciation (which oddly enough is true, thats a calculation provided on the minimal amount of time a species is needs to develop) i'm just curious as to how many people actually understand the difference between speciation and evolution. plus i want to explain it to anyone who doesn't get it. so i figure let them read selectively and pick out so i can drop some knowledge on them! For the spread of smarts! And teh LULZ!!!!! huzzah!

well technically couldn't speciation happen in a single generation? As long as the genetic mutation or change is large enough of a difference from the previous, couldn't the new one be considered a different species?

"The vast majority of atheists are worse at shoving their beliefs, or lack thereof, down people's throats than most Christians are"

Gee, I wonder if belief in imaginary things can have negative effects...
1: The Inquisition
2: Crusades
3: Most of 16th century Europe
4: Modern day Radical Islamists
5: The huge attempt by Christians (at least here in the mid-western states) to push their religion into government and schools

ehhhh sorry guys i'm gonna have to agree with disco on this one. historically and scientifically are two very different concepts. When it comes to history the evidence isn't simply what happened by why it happened based off human interpretation and stories passed down from generation to generation (especially in the days of young history. meaning when history was just beginning to be recorded and was done so in story form.)
There's a saying that "History is written by the victors" and it's completely true. history is completely subjective depending on who is in power of the knowledge. evidence and scientific data can point out the truths and false claims when it comes to details of it but it needs specifics to be effective. when it comes to the existence of a specific individual person on which a specific event occurred but is given no time frame of the event and no data on a specific location science isn't able to give a reliable answer as to the exactness of the truths behind it. In other words when it comes to Noah existing as an actual person on which a greatly exaggerated story is based on we can't say if he is real or not. he could have been a simple paranoid farmer or someone who built a boat near a river to save his live stock from flood waters. or just some guy who managed to predict a flash flood and saved some dogs. science can prove that a global flood didn't happen (obviously it didn't) but in terms of prehistory this might have simply been the story of a simple man and a simple deed he preformed. historically insignificant but historical none the less.

The greatest problem with history is that myths and legends and yes even bible stories is that, even though they are thought of as nothing but stories now days, there were many that were founded in reality and use real facts as a basis for the stories. the stories were just there to inform of the past but were also entertainment. a way to pass on messages and in some cases rally people to a cause. they served a dual purpose and leave us to route through the truths of them. this, like many other stories of its time, is one such case in which we may never know the full truth of what happened. all we do know is that if it had then the scale was a complete falsehood. but because of the bible (and only because of it) Noah and other important characters of the bible (jesus, a couple disciples, david, goliath) must be considered as biblical historical figures. basically putting them in the same category as the heros of ancient greek stories in terms of historical significance. they may have a historical basis but no proof as to existence/factual historical reference.

tl:dr- Might be real people or they might not be. but in light of the stories treat the character as a possible person who MAY have existed (or was multiple people wrapped into one character) their deeds in the stories may have been exaggerated but don't write that off as proof of the character itself having never been real. it's a logical conclusion for sure, but in some cases stories are true. logic must be tempered with small faith [side note: Not religious faith you nutters out there, i mean taking unknowns as true to arrive at an answer] in what has been told in order for truth to be found in history. it leads to crazy people being out there chasing shadows (big foot, dragons, jesus) but every once in a while those nutters get their shit right. (The city of Troy, the battle of the 300, The hittite the fourth great kingdom of the ancient world [literally was almost wiped from history until recently it was rediscovered in the 1800's])

only true in the case of events within the realm of possibility. if physically possible then you're right no proof does not mean it didn't happen. example: i did a flip right now. i can't prove it to you but for all you know i did.
if physically impossible based off of knowledge physics, natural laws of nature, and scientific advancements. then given that they have no physical evidence or proof of claim "you have no proof, so it didn't happen" is a perfectly logical argument
example: I'm floating ten inches above the ground, feeding a monkey, who's playing Mozart and singing soprano with the voice of morgan freedman, whilst wearing a tuxedo and top hat. ironically this monkey also had it's vocal cords surgically removed yesterday.

while you don't have any evidence of the second example you can probably conclude that it isn't true. point being "you have no proof, so it didn't happen" can be logically inferred in some cases however "the bible said it, so it must be true" is a false backing as the information having a source doesn't necessarily prove the source is credibile. to be PROVEN true evidence must be provided. but to infer the whether or not something has happened we must look at whether the possibility that it happened we must ask whether or not it's even possible to make such a thing occur. if it is possible, but unable to be proven, it is not written off as false. it is chalked up as another question to find an answer for or concluded to have to little evidence to give a definitive answer for (maybe i did flip maybe i didn't, it can be tested so no proof is nothing more than a lack of supporting evidence). if not possible based off what is already known however then proof must be given to back it (My monkey is gonna be really pissed when he finds out people don't believe he exists, but i swear he's real. i just can't show you him cause he's invisible and only i can hear him sing) otherwise it can be concluded as false.

the simple answer is no. here's why:
lets say you have a lion and it gives birth to an animal that is heavily mutated (lets call it a Mion, mutant lion). now assuming it survives (which in almost literally every case it won't) whats is this Mion going to mate with? nothing. it can't produce any offspring to carry on it's genetic traits. and even if it did there would be the matter of inbreeding among the population (hooray! mutant- mutant-lions! Mutmions!)

in any case the Mion would die and no little baby mions are born. in order for a species to develop and stay stable it needs genetic variability. something not able to be achieved within one generation. but over the course of many is extremely plausible.

Speciation is the evolution of a species as a whole. you can't have a species with just one animal. it's for this reason mules aren't considered a species, rather a hybrid. they need to be able to produce viable offspring within their own species. i could go into all the types of speculation but wikipedea will save me a hell a lot of typing and i'm supposed to be studying for conservation bio (oops) so heres a link. i can explain it fairly well for the most part but evolution and speciation is a lot more complex than "we came from monkeys" as many fundamentalist "scientists" would have you believe.

The only way to have what you suggest occur is in a lab setting with very specific genetic manipulation occurring. basically splicing genes and arranging them to create something new. so far the only people to do this are the people from Jurassic park (did not end well... and technically i don't even think they could be considered dinosaurs, more like frogasaurs. idk it's been a while since i've seen it lulz) and some scientists who recently brought back a frog for little while. (it died but technically it was a first generation speciation since the animal is extinct. this literally happend like within the past week.)

so no it's not possible without heavy handed genetic manipulation to do what you suggest.

Those events were ran by people a long time ago who were afraid of God and wanted to keep themselves from being punished by God by spreading their own faith. The equivalent of that today is religious extremists and they are few and far between compared to 16th century history.

As for Christians trying to push religion into schools, that event is also highly exaggerated and very widely publicized because rabid media has a way of blowing everything out of proportion. Science has taken precedence in schools and government because it is more widely accepted as applicable knowledge. The reason why religion is not in schools is because somewhere, someone will complain about having to be taught about intelligent design when they don't believe in it which will cause more legal issues than any government will even want to deal with whereas science has theories and evidence to show its legitimacy which means that very few people are willing to dispute it.

I don't think anyone would argue that Zeus is a real historical figure, it's fairly obvious he didn't exist. I think you're confusing mythological figures with historical figures; for someone to be a historical figure it needs to be somehow proven that they existed. It's why you don't learn about Noah and the ark in History class, because he's not a historical figure.

i was hoping you wouldn't get confused but i'm not referring to the gods but the heros. heros are the men from the stories like the Iliad and the odyssey (Achilles, Odysseus, etc) who very well could have been real heros with greatly exaggerated stories. obviously the gods are myths but since the city of Troy is real the generals from the stories could very well also have been. in all likely hood they are just characters but may have been based upon real people and events. it's the challenge of history to find out but until then they remain as nothing more than important characters in stories. i was simply trying to point out that in those times stories and history often blended together. so writing of the character a fictional simply because the feats aren't plausible is one of the worst things you could do when referring to the historical significance of a book this old.
By the logic you're using in the case of characters in stories we would have to assume that Davey Crockett was nothing more than a story. he achieved many things in his life and stories told about him even while he was alive were hugely exaggerated. but he was still a real person, just as others through out history. the difference in time doesn't change that it's very possible that characters in the bible actually may have once lived. based off of the content in the book it's not highly likely, but characters (and i mean characters alone) may have once lived. the actions claimed to have been preformed by them do not go hand in hand with that existence though. a story does not change the laws of reality, it simply gives it dramatic effect.

I'm not writing off the possibility that the biblical Noah existed, if evidence is ever found then obviously he would have existed, but until then he would not be and should not be considered a historical figure like originally claimed by Disco. I don't see how you can lump Davy Crockett, who was a politician and has a record of existing, in with Noah, whose only record of existing is in the Bible. Right now he's just not an accepted historical figure.

tl;dr: The possibility of being historical != actually being historical

1. YAY! Evolution fight. I enjoy these thoroughly, because they are super easy.
2. Whether or not Noah existed DOES matter, because we, as human beings, should care about truth. Truth leads to progress, accuracy, and improvement.
3. There is no evidence for the biblical Noah's existence.
4. Micro evolution and macro evolution aren't separate things. They are the same thing: evolution, simply on different timescales. Those two terms were created and are almost exclusively used by Christian apologists who have never understood evolution in the slightest.

@4.) nah they actually are used in describing evolution, christians just like to separate the two to help explain their case. it's used to accept and separate the evolution we do see in everyday life (that they can't deny) from the evolution they try to deny and make false statements about. the terms are used to describe the differences and rates of change time wise and on a genetic level (micro) from the changes we see physically, behaviorally, and genetically affecting a broad population and how it survives with the changes produced by microevolution. (basically what little changes made the big ones.)

I mean, really, they are the same thing, and I have rarely if ever seen the terms used in scholarly journals. When it comes down to it, both are observed in-lab and in nature, both are factual, and neither are in question.

true, just a very slight difference in the usage. micro is normally such insignificantly small change that it doesn't have any real effect until several generations have passed and it becomes more prominent phonetically. (change in fur color, longer claws, etc) problem is some people are dumb enough to believe that micro can't lead to macro (which makes zero sense) and won't listen to very reasonable and simple explanations because it's "against the word of god"

Exactly, which is why I generally abhor the distinction in terminology. Insisting that it is all one broad process, evolution, is one of the easiest and most scientifically accurate ways to head off that argument.

didn't you just say that if something has a mutation that's large enough to be considered a different species, that it wouldn't have anything to mate with? Then if that's the case, even with small changes like lengthening of claws or something, its not exactly viable for a species to exist partway between the two as it would extremely inefficient in its environment...

1 "didn't you just say that if something has a mutation that's large enough to be considered a different species, that it wouldn't have anything to mate with?" that applies to the single generation senario you asked about. i said "no. heres why." then i proceeded to list what would happen if that were even physically possible (which its not) and why this would ultimately fail in a single generation situation. i will be clear this, that applies to the single generation speciation to which you questioned me on. genetic separation over time is much different and is a very normal/natural occurrence. what you had asked me before was basically this: "if two cows fucked could i get a Fangaroo?" the answer is always no. (Whats a Fangaroo? i had to make up a new species name since it's not possible for one species to change into another existing species. speciation is literally an entirely new species but genetically similar to the ancestor. it's like a distant cousin. ex: great granddad fucks great grandma and has two kids. the four kids have a kid a piece and those kids have kids. your dad was the son of the eldest son of great granddad and great grandma. is timmy, the son of the son of Great granddads and great grandmas youngest daughter, your brother? no, because three generations later timmy has a his own family linage he can trace that is separate from yours. are you related? fuck yes you are. Great grandma and great granddad still got down with the funk and had your grandparents.) (p.s. i hope you have nightmares from those images.....)

2.) "Then if that's the case, even with small changes like lengthening of claws or something, its not exactly viable for a species to exist partway between the two as it would extremely inefficient in its environment..." ... ok since you're not getting this and you've been selectively reading bits and pieces of what i said lets put it nice and clear for you. speciation occurs as a result of evolution when their genetics become so separate that they only can mate with others who have genes simliar to their own. this can happen through isolation (big ass mountain popped out of fucking now where! [side note: not literally popped out of no where but mountains can isolate populations from others]) selective breeding (human induced, ever wonder where the hell all those dog breeds come from?) and several other methods which i've already linked you to. what you're failing to understand is that there is not definite time where we can say that now this species is a different species. we are all technically in a transition phase between two species, thats why asking for transitional fossils is moronic. each generation of new organisms is the next step. the separation we see comes from the prominence of the traits that has allowed it to survive. genetically animals become separate from another population and eventually a split occurs. the more time that passes the greater the rift.
and as i've said before not all of evolution is beneficial in many cases animals die. if the mutation isn't beneficial or harms the organism it dies. the species however continues on with the other individuals that did survive.

Go watch Dawkins, when he was younger, talk about the so-called "irreducible complexity" of the eye and wing. A little BBC special, I believe. To say that something transitional is automatically less efficient is asinine.

Ertrov already explained this to you and I already knew. Evolution takes far longer than a few thousand years. I honestly couldn't tell if you were trolling or not because your knowledge of how evolution works is laughable at best.

Macroevolution (adaptation of non-microscopic organisms.) has been proven several times over through fossil, observational and genetic evidence among several other things. This is completely contrary to what you posted. So now you DON'T think animals can diversify? You can't have it both ways. Evolution is just a fancy word for adaptation. Every species has ever existed has changed based on needed conditions for survival (Or died out.) Which makes the Noah's Arc story even sillier.

If everything died except what was on the arc, there would be no viable animal population in existence and nowhere near enough genetic diversity to produce the animals that currently exist. The offspring would be too inbred to adapt and would all go extinct. The same goes for humans considering only Noah's family was spared in this story. Case and point: If Noah's arc was true, every land animal would be extinct.

You want to believe in the bible fine, but don't act like the science is on your side.

yes adaptation is one thing, but to have a complete jump in species is extremely unlikely, as if an animal had only half the traits of each side, it would make for an extremely inefficient animal, such as if there was a reptile with feather but couldn't fly, that would mean that it would be a terrible hunter as the feather would create drag if it wants to chase something.
On top of that, as not one single missing link of any proposed macro evolution theory has been discovered, personally I find it hard to believe that macroevolution is viable. Also, who says that Bible and science can't go together hand in hand?

"to have a complete jump in species is extremely unlikely" So 'unlikely' that it's happened millions of times. As with some (see: most) of your other statements, this is just untrue.

I can see you've never actually read a biology textbook. I'll explain a few things that are just outright wrong here.

For one thing, evolution (I'll dispense of the 'micro' and 'macro' terms used by creationists, since it's all one process) works in two parts: mutation and natural selection. First, a mutation occurs in an animal. If it's a negative mutation, like your example of a creature gaining useless feathers, there's an increased chance that creature will die before breeding, and that mutation won't be passed on. However, if it's a positive mutation, such as a better fur pattern for camouflage, there's an in creased chance of that creature surviving long enough to pass on its genes through breeding. This then rapidly spreads, and the species evolves. Members of the species in other areas who don't receive this gene may eventually evolve on their own, and eventually the two (or more over time) branching lines wil evolve to the point of being separate species. So what you call micro evolution is actually just the small steps to achieve what you call macro evolution.

As far as 'missing links', scientists have found many, many of them. Seriously, look up all the different pre-human species we've found fossils of, just for example. The problem is, every time one is found, the creationists then point to the gaps around that. No matter how much evidence is obtained, they'll always complain about the most minuscule gaps that any reasonable person can fill in. In short, we've found plenty of links. Your statement is simply false.

And as to your question: "Also, who says that Bible and science can't go together hand in hand?" Well, the Bible does. The Bible claims plenty of unscientific things, like the Genesis account. Science can't go along with the Bible because science has shown much of the Bible to be false.

I'm outsourcing the rest of this to Ertrov since he made most of my points before I had the chance to reply. But before I do, I'll focus on "missing links" and why this argument fails. Let's say you were solving a mystery, say, the murder of a man at the hands of his butler. You find a shotgun with the butler's fingerprints on it and a bit of the victim's blood on the barrel. You have a witness who sold him the shotgun and one who heard the blast from next door. The murder victim's head looks like it was blown off by a 12 gauge. So the butler looks guilty, right? Then, there is video footage of him walking throughout the house, toting the shotgun around the same time the neighbor heard the shot fired. If that video footage didn't include the actual act of him shooting the man, would you say "Clearly he's innocent because there's a gap in the video record!"? Or would you have more than enough to go on without it? That's the thing about fossils. We don't really need them to prove evolution. They're just a nice bonus.

Nowhere near as plausible as the Butler killing him. Because head trauma would be identifiable if he was knocked out. But you missed the point. The point was that with or without the video, all of the evidence points to the butler. Just like with or without fossils, there is plenty of evidence in nature that supports evolution. The "missing links" are irrelevant.

anyways you seriously aren't getting this. who's to say the animal starts growing feathers for hunting? who says it's not for mating? who's to say it doesn't help in hunting?

evolution doesn't work in the way of benefits as we see them, it doesn't work to make an organism stronger, faster, or smarter (though it tends to help a hell of a lot) it works in the way of what change has allowed this particular individual to survive and pass on it's genes? which individual offspring was lucky enough to receive beneficial genetics and pass it on to there own? which ones survived the changes in the environment and passed on the traits to their children.
it's a mater of survival and mating and progressively changing. organisms have died in innumerable numbers during this process. because in reality not every mutation works, not every evolutionary path leads to life and not every species will survive through the ages. and the reason is simple, this world we live in is reality. things die, the path isn't easy and individual organisms will benefit or suffer from the changes this process causes. but as a species those individuals that are better able to survive do, and those that aren't won't.
evolution isn't a choice, it's a fact. there is no benefits and there are no hand outs. we don't decide where it will take us and we don't choose what is beneficial. if you're lucky you get the benefits, if not, well hope you can make it long enough pass on your genes and do whatever comes naturally.

a missing link= literally any animal fossil ever. we don't need a generation by generation fossil record to understand the great apes are descended from a common ancestor. we have fossils that show our history, and the progression up til this point. it's not perfect but its a damn clear map of where we came from. in reality that record has hell of a lot more branches left to be filled and many never will. but thats the nature of it. some fade and the ones we are lucky enough to have left to us help show the world from which we have come.

and ummmmm macro has been proven, so, ummmmmm, next time look in science journal? the internet has lies but science doesn't. investigate and learn, and question that which you don't understand. reach your own conclusions. but always remember to listen to those who have proven their knowledge and share their information with honesty and integrity let them prove that they can be trusted and back their works. it's the key to expanding your own knowledge and saves us the trouble of sounding like arrogant assholes when posed a question we hear much to regularly

No, the missing link still hasn't been proven...I will agree that a generation by generation fossil is not needed, but what would be considered the "missing link" would be a fossil that is an in-between for 2 species, and as of yet, there has never been an adult fossil found

You're suggesting that evolution states that species simply jump from one to the next, and therefore would have a distinct in-between species between two others. That's not how it works. Evolution is a very slow, very gradual process. Every animal born is the same species as its parent, but gradual changes may cause it not to be the same species as it's ancestor from a few hundred thousand years ago. 'Missing links' between those species have been found over and over again. The evidence is there, regardless of your ignorance of its existence.

So, once again, you're just dead wrong, because you don't understand what a missing link is, due to a lack of knowledge about the process of evolution.

basically all you're doing is asking to compare a person from now to a person 7,000 years ago. its like i just said, all fossils are transitional. evolution is much more gradual than what you suggest and there is no one point someone can point to and be like yup he's "half way between these two right here." the changes are much more subtle and just occur over time. one day a child is born and the species will have moved on from the species it once was.
and on top of that genetics, similarities in body structure, vestigial bones and other parts of evolution all support it as well. fossils aren't the only evidence evolution has.

(for less douchy explanation see last paragraph lol i went a lil overboard on the whole why religion pisses academics off)

so long as they don't try and claim the earth is 6,000 years old and make dumb claims that science has already easily refuted (sun revolves earth, four pillars, earth is flat, etc) i see no problem believing in that. for the most part i feel the general population of the world actually does believe in something similar to this.
Most atheists actually don't care what you believe, even if someone was wished to ignore that which science has show us to be true in favor of the word of the bible, koran, or something similar in nature. we honestly don't really care about it because faith (or lack there of) is a personal choice.
however the problems tend to stem out of these groups that do believe their bibles or religious faith word for word, and believe it is their duty to spread this to other people. it's not that they are trying to spread their faith that causes these reactions, rather, it's the fact that they are willfully spreading ignorance and propagating another generation that will do the same. the fact is the problem isn't that they are going out to adults and preaching to them to convert, it's not that they are willfully ignorant of facts. the problem is that they are going after children, that they are passing legislation on education and scientific definitions that they have no right to impose on. thats what causes the outrage among atheists. believe what you will, say what you will, but when science is attacked without reason and attempts are made to suppress information to children who are still learning we are going to fight back. the idea that creationism should be given the same scientific credibility as evolution (which is actual damned science) is absurd. teaching people that the arguments, that have been proven false time and time again, should be given the same merits as proven facts in a class room is academic suicide for education. scientific education and religion are separate entities. the two areas that cannot cross. a similar reaction that would be received by these people if they had gone into history classes and demanded that it be taught that the earth was only 6,000 years old. historians would be up in arms over this as we have many civilizations that predate this. it's these actions that cause such a harsh backlash from the academic community. information is something that can't be tampered with by religious sources when it comes to advancement in an academic field. the unfounded bias with them distorts the truth of what has been found to be accurate.

what i'm trying to get at is this
They started this fight, But we will end it. there is no middle ground and unless they back the hell off and stop lying about the facts we present this will only end in the fall of religion. science doesn't seek anything but truth. and unfortunately for religion every step towards that truth that science takes cause their claims to weaken. the only hope they have left to them now is ignorance, and lies. Deceit and misinformation. And because of what science is, because of what education is, and because they have chosen to attack the work and progress with such feeble methods (including violence, lies, threats, and suppression through out history) science and academic progress will crush them with the full weight of the collective knowledge that the human race has acquired and is still building upon.

like i said this fight was not something that we sought, but i can promise it is something science is going to end. science can not and will never allow ignorance into infiltrate it. it will root out any seeds of corruption, anything that might do it harm in reaching understanding of the universes around us. it's the beauty of the field, it is self correcting. both the unstoppable force and immovable object, so long as we continue to explore and question our universe. and the only way religion will ever survive along side it is by stepping back and recognizing that while yes it does challenge their beliefs, it is not seeking to attack them. let their faith be tested, let themselves hear the challenges and hear what others have to say. and if they still choose to believe then thats more than fine! but if some continue to force that belief out there and challenge science with the methods they are using and nothing but a book to back it, well then, science is going to bitch slap their religions to the dark ages where they belong. there can be no half truths and certainly no falsehoods in a field that works only in answers. nothing short of perfection will ever satisfy the answers it seeks.

(side note: ... ummmm yea kinda sounds a little "i'm better than you" ish but it's true. science doesn't mean any harm, but when a belief relies on ignorance and lack of knowledge science will eventually break it. religion understands this so it attacks. like they say though the truth hurts. and religion at this point is just butthurt that they know their beliefs are doomed for failure. thats the way life works though)

I do see what you are saying. A very good friend of mine expressed that he believed that God created it, and then left it to be. The only other thing God did was send Christ. Other than that, the old testament stories were merely that, just stories. Stories more of moral instead of actuality. You know, do this and don't do this. I kind of look at it that way, especially with the creation story. I think it's a way of showing how it all came to be, but God more put it into motion. One reason of this is that Adam translates to not only man, but mankind in the old transcripts. "Adam" could be mankind in general, not one man.

That's a nice thought but the bible by it's nature can't be scientific. It was written before what we know as modern science was developed. (Biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) The gospels were written by people who couldn't tell you what an atom or a cell was, where the sun went at night, or even where in the solar system earth is located.

Can you understand science and still be religious? I suppose. But you have to look at most of the bible as allegory if you do, rather than interpret all of it literally.

If anyone actually went through and read the bible...just by looking at genealogy, it can easily be seen that the Earth is easily over 6000 years old...if anything humans have probably existed more than 10000... On a side note, what's wrong with the idea of creationism...If we were to say that the big bang theory is true, it's impossible for the universe to spontaneously expand, and the only way such an event would be possible would indicate that something has to exist outside this universe.

"if anything humans have probably existed more than 10000" Change probably to definitely, and 10000 to 150,000, and then that's correct.

"If we were to say that the big bang theory is true" which literally every piece of evidence says it is "it's impossible for the universe to spontaneously expand, and the only way such an event would be possible would indicate that something has to exist outside this universe" See, right there, you've set a limitation on what you consider to be a possible set of answers, based on your own personal bias. There are many theories as to what caused the big bang that don't involve an outside force. Some do. None of them are evidence in support of a god.

no worries lol
but to my point is that while yea you're completely right on that we are having a problem with a push to prevent a return to rationality. religion is fine so long as it doesn't attempt to suppress. then it can become dangerous. imagine America 40 years from now with a fully religious gov that believes in "spreading christianity" or "spreading its morals" to the rest of the world. imagine the US with leaders who believe fully in god and believe in the "Moral obligation" of upholding other countries to our standards of peoples rights. or that they believed Christianity was under "attack" and must be "defended". the shitstorm that would be unleashed on the world could literally be the end of it all. we are to powerful to go through phases of irrationality. we have to be constantly aware of our power and what could be the result if we ever slipped up. because if we aren't and the wrong people gain power the result would cripple the world. it's our responsibility to keep ourselves under control.